Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Recently in the mail...

Not sure what you mean.. but if I guess correctly then ifmen are going to be tested for HIV before they embark on a sexualrelationship (as 'negotiated safety' recommends they do) thenthere is every reason to suggest that they get tested for STIs as well.

However whether such a test should not preclude regular STI testingduring the relationmship (see below).

Within the strategy the partners decide to have unprotectedsex (anal intercourse) within the relationship but 'safe sex'outside the relationship: they may decide that the 'safe sex'outside the relationships is:(1) no sex outside;(2) no anal sex outside;(3) if anal sex outside then only and always protected anal outside.

If the partners decide and commit to (1)then there is no likelihood of any STI infection occuring(unless one was present at the outset of the relatiosnhip).

On the other hand if (2) or (3) are decided on then an STI is alwayspossible during the relationship ... Men (indeed anyone) who engagesin sex with numbers of partners are advised to have regular STI checks..

> Within the strategy the partners decide to have unprotected sex> (anal intercourse) within the relationship but 'safe sex'> outside the relationship: they may decide that the 'safe sex'> outside the relationships is:> (1) no sex outside;> (2) no anal sex outside;> (3) if anal sex outside then only and always protected anal> outside.

the correct term is always... saferthere's never zero risk.if we don't even get the word right, how can we expect people to usethese safer sex practices?

> If the partners decide and commit to (1)> then there is no likelihood of any STI infection occuring> (unless one was present at the outset of the relatiosnhip).

if they keep the commitment. that's implied in the word commit.people make a commitment. time passes. other things happen.you've got to have testing. you've got to decide it'sthe right thing to do.